ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of the efficacy and functional recovery of unilateral biportal endoscopy-assisted lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of unilateral biportal endoscopy for recurrent lumbar disc herniation: A quantitative analysis of 7 cohort studies involving 409 patients.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Deployable real-time spinal endoscopic instance segmentation with lightweight multi-scale attention mechanism.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Risk factors and prediction model for recurrence after unilateral dual-channel spinal endoscopy in patients with lumbar disc herniation.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Long-term comparative study of Open-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, and UBE-TLIF in single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.European journal of medical research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the impact of unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) assisted interbody fusion on the functional recovery of patients diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation (LDH). From October 2021 to October 2022, 132 patients with LDH were selected as the research objects. The clinical data were retrospectively analyzed. According to the different surgical methods, LDH patients were divided into experimental group and control group (n = 66). The control group underwent conventional posterior lumbar open interbody fusion surgery, while the experimental group received interbody fusion surgery assisted by UBE. The clinical efficacy and perioperative indicators (operation time, total blood loss, 48 h postoperative drainage volume, and length of hospital stay) were recorded and compared between the two groups. The lumbar spine imaging parameters (lumbar lordosis index, posterior disc height, intervertebral space height, and Cobb Angle) before and after treatment were compared between the two groups. Lumbar function was evaluated using the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Quality of life was assessed using the World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale (WHO-QOL-BREF). The incidence of complications after treatment was compared between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was employed to identify influencing factors. In terms of low back pain improvement, the effective rate of the experimental group was 96.97%, which was significantly higher than 80.30% of the control group (P < 0.01). In terms of leg pain improvement, the effective rate of the experimental group was 95.45%, which was significantly higher than 75.76% of the control group (P < 0.01). The operation time and length of hospital stay in the experimental group were shorter than those in the control group (P < 0.001). The total blood loss and 48 h postoperative drainage volume in the experimental group were significantly less than those in the control group (P < 0.001). The lumbar lordosis index and posterior disc height of the two groups after operation were significantly higher than those before operation (P < 0.05). The intervertebral space height and Cobb Angle of the two groups after operation were significantly lower than those before operation (P < 0.05). The improvement of lumbar imaging parameters in the experimental group after operation was significantly better than that in the control group (P < 0.01). The JOA scores of the two groups after operation were significantly higher than those before operation, and the VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain and ODI scores were significantly lower than those before operation (P < 0.05). The improvement of the above indexes in the experimental group after operation was significantly better than that in the control group (P < 0.01). The incidence of complications in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.01). The WHOQOL-BREF scores of the two groups after surgery were significantly higher than those before surgery (P < 0.05). The improvement of WHOQOL-BREF score in the experimental group after surgery was significantly better than that in the control group (P < 0.001). Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that UBE-assisted interbody fusion was an independent protective factor for good clinical efficacy in patients with LDH after adjusting the covariates of clinical symptom distribution, trauma history and Modic changes (P < 0.05). UBE interbody fusion has certain clinical advantages in the treatment of LDH. Compared with conventional open surgery, UBE interbody fusion has less bleeding and faster postoperative recovery. Moreover, UBE interbody fusion can relieve the symptoms of low back pain, promote the recovery of lumbar function and improve the quality of life. UBE interbody fusion is a safe and feasible choice in clinical treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.